Letters from the Public — San Jose City Council, June 14, 2022

6/13/22, 11:18 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)
Susan Woods <
Sat 6/11/2022 6:10 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]>
Cc:

City Clerk <[email protected]>; <
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I encourage you to vote NO on this project and go back to the drawing boards for a better solution.

I am a resident of District 1 and was born and raised in San Jose.

We all know we need housing and shopping in this already three times failed shopping center, however, this project is not taking into consideration the already over crowded roadways in this area. The building heights proposed are too high with no regard to the neighbors. Parking is insufficient and this area does NOT (and never has) used public transportation.

This area of San Jose is adjacent to Saratoga, Cupertino and Campbell. Prospect High School is to the West, Westgate is to the North, and Lawrence Expressway, Saratoga Avenue, Prospect Rd, Hamilton Avenue, and Quito Rd are congested a most of the day. A possible Costco is going in (yes I am opposed to that, too)...you are looking at gridlock!

Council people...think about something more than revenue.

Susan Woods
San Jose, CA 95129

6/13/22, 11:15 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1 [External Email]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Item 10.2: Reject the Rezoning and PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project PDC19-049 & PD20-006
Livezey, Doris <
Sat 6/11/2022 7:58 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Mayor Liccardo & City Council Members:

Please do not proceed with a vote on this proposed project. It is not appropriate for the space and not what the residents want. There is not enough park land, there are not enough potential job sites, the structures are too high for residential neighborhoods.

There is not enough transportation for people living there to get to jobs or people to get there to work. Saratoga Avenue cannot handle the potential added amount of traffic on this entrance to Highway 85.

The Urban Village buildings on Camden Ave have only 8 stories. Thank you Pam Foley for doing a great job of facilitating that project.

The Steven's Creek projects are only 8 stories where they could actually be higher, since there is adequate transportation along the corridor.

Do not rush this project through; it requires much additional planning.

Thank you for your consideration.

Doris Livezey
Murdock Neighborhood, District-1
About 1.5 miles from the potential project

6/13/22, 11:18 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/3 [External Email]
Concerns on PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE

VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)
peng jiang <
Sun 6/12/2022 4:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>;The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: <
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Mayor Liccardo & San Jose Councilmembers:

I am a resident of the Moreland West neighborhood. I think the current plan of the El Paseo project has a lot of serious problems. San Jose city should not approve it before correcng these issues. I support San Jose city to build more homes to address the housing crisis, but the city oﬃcials should not only care about the number of residenal units and should not neglect public health, safety, the basic quality of people's life, and common sense.

1. The project plans for 2000+ residents but only has a 1.1-acre park. From the map provided by the developer, the park has long walkways; it looks like a garden rather than a park where people can play games or exercise. My understanding is that based on the SJ Park Impact Ordinance (SJMC

14.25 PIO), 2000+ residents would require 6 acres of parkland. Even with the private and public open space, which include travel lanes of the "Main Street," 30+ parking spots, walkways, totalling

3.5 acres, that’s well below the required 6 acres.

This area is known for its lack of parkland space. The neighborhoods around the El Paseo project (Moreland West and Baker West) have no park. I heard that at the SJ planning commission meeng, when it was brought up that there is not enough park space for such a high-density project, the project developer said that people can use the Moreland and Prospect school ﬁelds.

And the SJ planning commissioners were okay with that! This is irresponsible! This is neglecng public health and safety. This is NOT okay! Schools are not public parks! Schools have the priority to keep our kids safe. San Jose city and the developer should not push the responsibility of public recreaon to schools.

And I heard there is some sort of in-lieu fee that the developer negoated with San Jose city for the parkland. How does San Jose city make sure this money is used for the parkland for the residents in the project and the neighborhoods and not used somewhere else? San Jose city cannot sell our rights to parkland!

6/13/22, 11:18 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/3

2. This area is not well served by public transit. It's not the proper location for high-density housing.

The developer tries to use public transit to respond to the traffic issue the project causes and only uses the number of bus lines in the area to assess the public transit services. That's totally wrong! This is what kind of services we have here:

My work is at , Mountain View. To attend a 10am meeting on Monday, the quickest bus ride takes 1 hour 22 mins. I need to take three different buses, walk 27 mins, and therefore leave at 8am. Typical driving time is 16 - 24 mins, so I can leave at 9:30am.

My medical provider is Kaiser. For a Friday 2pm appointment at Kaiser Santa Clara medical center, I need to take three different buses, walk 16 mins, and therefore leave at 12:52pm. Typical driving time is 10 - 22 mins, so I can leave at 1:38pm.

I foster kittens for the Humane Society of Silicon Valley in Milpitas. For a kitten vaccine at 2pm on Saturday, I need to take a bus and light rail, carry a heavy carrier with kittens in it, walk 30+ minutes, for a total time of 1 hour 40 mins, leaving at 12:16pm. Typical driving time is 25mins, so I can leave at 1:30pm.

All these numbers are just for one way. For a round trip, travel me is doubled.

All trips require changing buses. The travel me of taking public transit is three mes that of driving. I can't aﬀord to spend 3 or 4 hours on each trip.

If I am not wrong, Vice Mayor Jones lives in the West San Jose area. I want to ask Vice Mayor Jones, have you taken the bus from home to work?

3. San Jose city's planning and project evaluation are pro forma and doesn’t consider residents’ real situations:

San Jose city pushes this high-density project, urging residents to give up cars and use public transportation. But at the same time, the city plans a Costco just across the street from the El Paseo project. Costco is a wholesale store; shoppers have to have a car.

I shop
at Costco regularly. I live one mile away from the planned Costco location. I bike to shop at the stores in this shopping center, but I can't imagine putting my large Costco shopping items on my bike.

The Costco project is going to have a huge impact on local traffic because it will draw a lot of shoppers from Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, and West San Jose. But the El Paseo project doesn't consider this impact.

San Jose city doesn't include the Saratoga Ave and Hwy 280 intersection in the traffic study for the El Paseo project. The reason is that it's out of the project scope. The city's environmental impact report (EIR) ignores the impact of other housing projects near the El Paseo project. Hwy 280 is used a lot by the residents in this area; I use it on 95% of my driving trips. The city's EIR is not based on residents' real life and ignores residents' real needs.

The city's public hearings don't give enough time for the public to speak. At the recent planning commission meeting and public hearing for the Costco project, we, the residents, were told before the meetings that we had two minutes to talk, but at the meeting, we were only given one minute. It shows me that San Jose city has no intention of hearing the public voice at all!

6/13/22, 11:18 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

4. The El Paseo developer and San Jose city did poorly on public reach-out. The developer said they had 40-something meetings with the neighbors in the neighborhoods. There are thousands of residents in the neighborhoods. How many residents did they actually reach in the meetings? The developer claimed they brought in Whole Foods by the public's request. How many requests did they get for the Whole Foods? Since 2019, from the beginning of the project, neighbors constantly expressed their concerns about higher density and increased traffic, but these issues were never properly addressed.

The developer claimed that they removed the educaonal facility from the plan based on residents’ feedback. I am highly skepcal about it. The project had two plans at the very beginning: the plan with school and the plan without school. The developer avoided telling the public that this school was a private internaonal K12 boarding school, which means there would be foreign teenagers living here. I believe the plan with the school was dropped because the deal with the school failed.

Please reject the El Paseo project as it is, reduce the resident density of the project, and address the traﬃc issues properly. Common sense is needed here!
Thanks,
Peng

6/13/22, 11:16 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Item 10.2: Reject the Rezoning and PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project (PDC19-049 & PD20-006)
Amy Cody <
Sun 6/12/2022 5:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Mayor Liccardo & City Councilmembers:

Please find attached a joint letter from eight neighborhoods surrounding the proposed El Paseo Mixed-Used Signature Project area. We are writing to share our concerns and to urge you to reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applications scheduled for a City Council hearing and vote on June 21, 2022.

Respectfully,
Rosemary Kamei, President, Baker West Neighborhood Association Amy Cody, President, Moreland West Neighborhood Association

Marc Pawliger, on behalf of the Country Lane Neighborhood Association Gary Smith, President, English Estates Neighborhood Association Skip Stevens, President, Westgate Village Neighborhood Association Michael Wright, President, Easterbrook Neighborhood Association Doris Livesey, President, Murdock Neighborhood Association Chris Vasquez, President, Saratoga Woods Security Community Association =====
Amy Cody
President, Moreland West NA
www.morelandwest.org
c

6/13/22, 11:16 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

EasterbrookNeighborhoodAssociation
English EstatesNeighborhoodAssociation
June 8, 2022
Mayor Sam LiccardoVice-Mayor Charles JonesCouncilmember Sylvia ArenasCouncilmember Magdalena CarrascoCouncilmember David CohenCouncilmember Devora DavisCouncilmember Maya EsparzaCouncilmember Pam FoleyCouncilmember Sergio JimenezCouncilmember Matt MahanCouncilmember Raul Peralez Re: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEOAND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE(SIGNATURE PROJECT)”Council Agenda Item – June 14 Mayor Liccardo & San Jose Councilmembers:

The undersigned (8) neighborhood organizations urge you to reject theRezoning and PD Permitapplicationsto redevelop a portion of the 30-acreEl Paseo de Saratoga shopping centerlocated inDistrict 1 at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Quito/Lawrence.

As part of the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village defined in Envision San Jose 2040,the El Paseo Phase 1project will set the stage for future development of our Urban Village area. Because our Urban Village iscurrently slated for planning in “Horizon 3,” El Paseo Phase 1 is being submitted as a “Signature Project”yet it seems to fail many of the requirements of that designation.

Surrounding neighborhoods, new residents, and theCity deserve a better projectto meet San Jose’sneeds.Longstanding, well-considered community concernsabout density, building heights, traffic impacts,and open spaces have not been acknowledged by the developer or the City. As a result, separate from thisletter, District 1 residents and affected Saratoga neighbors are circulating a petition opposing buildingheights greater than 8 stories and requesting a more comprehensive traffic analysis for the area.

Page1of 9

We understand that the City of San Jose needs to permit a significant amount of new housing, and wesupport reasonable growth.Before approving 2,000+new residents on 10.8 acres as a Phase 1 project,however, the City must do its due diligence on issues like parks space and transportation infrastructure.It must plan well and comprehensively. The community has raised serious issues, too many of whichhave been inadequately explained away, “mitigated,” or ignored. It should not be this way and thecurrent proposal should be rejected.

Our major concerns about the proposed project are:
●The 10.8-acre project site is not only part of a174-acre, City-designated Urban Village for which therehas been no planning, there has been no planning shared for the entirety of the30-acre site.Theproposed project addresses only about one third of the 30-acre El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center siteand is acknowledged to be the Phase 1 redevelopment plan for the site. To foster better planning,residents have requested housing, commercial, open space, and transportation goals for the entire 30-acresite. Instead, planning is being done in a piecemeal fashion, with the infrastructure impacts fromdeveloping the remaining 20 acres to be considered later.We request the Council reject the proposedproject until an Urban Village Plan has been approvedor at least until housing, commercial, open spaceand transportation goals have been established and assessed for the entire 30-acre El Paseo site. ● The buildings are significantly taller and of greater density than two nearby San Jose SignatureProjects.The recently approved Stevens Creek PromenadeSignature Project – which sits directly on theStevens Creek Corridor, a major focus area for transit investment by VTA, Santa Clara County, and the citiesof Cupertino, Santa Clara and San Jose – has8-storybuildings with 63 units/acre. The Cambrian Park PlazaSignature Project, near 85/Union, has39 units/acrewith the tallest building at 6 stories. El PaseoPhase 1proposes92 units/acre with buildings at 9, 10.5,11, and 12 stories. The community will support buildingsup to 8 stories, which is more appropriate for the area and more in line with other Signature Projects. ● Signature Projectsmustincorporate commercialsquare footage “well beyond the minimum”requirement.A 09/24/2019 SJ City memo identifiedthe minimum commercial footage for thenon-educational option as 165,428.93 sq ft. Thecurrentplanproposes 165,949 sq ft,exceeding thatminimum by 521 sq ft, or 0.3% over that minimum. Wedo not believe that the current commercial spacemeets the Signature Project requirement to exceed “well beyond the minimum” space. We had proposedto the Planning Commission that the project yield 195,000 sq ft to deliver 310 net new jobs.This aspectalone should disqualify the project as a Signature Projectand we request you reject this proposal asit iscurrently presented. ● The area is not well served by mass transit, nor has it been identified as an area of focus or growth asdemonstrated by its exclusion from the West San Jose Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan(MTIP). The nearest light rail station is 3 milesaway in Campbell. The nearest Caltrain station is 8 milesaway in Sunnyvale. During the work week, the area is served by only (2) northbound “Express 101” busesin the AM and (2) southbound “Express 101” buses in the PM. The other 3 bus lines serve a more limitedarea and have variable service frequencies during the day. There is no dedicated bus drop off/pick uplocation outside the roadway. Compare this to Valley Fair, which has a dedicated transit hub for buses thatgo frequently to surrounding transit hubs.

The bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is also poor.Saratoga Ave from 280 to Lawrence has beenidentified as a Vision Zero Priority Safety Corridor, as it accounts for a high proportion of fatalities andsevere injuries on San Jose streets.The area surroundingthe project site is not as dense in bikeways asother surrounding areas(https://511.org/sites/default/files/bike_maps/vta-santa-clara-valley-bikeways-map.pdf).Saratoga Ave from the El Paseo site to Stevens Creek Blvd has the worst VTA bike safety rating of "Extreme Page2of 9
Caution". Lawrence Expressway from the site all the way to 280 and to the Caltrain station is also rated“Extreme Caution”. There are no direct bikeways to downtown San Jose. Even when examining existingbikeways, there are issues that, per VTA criteria, would warrant “Extreme Caution”. For example, theCampbell Avenue bikeway has no specific rating but contains numerous elements cited in the VTA’s“Extreme Caution” rating such as: a narrow lane lacking a 3-foot bike lane buffer; traffic speeds at>35mph;numerous driveways on the right, and buses. Compare this to Cupertino Main Street, which is surroundedby physically protected bike lanes and green bike lane markings. While we align with the desire to supportmore travel by resident bicycles, the current infrastructure does not well support that transportationmode.

Despite these transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure and safety deficiencies, as of 05/2022, thearea has not been included in past years of planning for the West San Jose MTIP.We request you rejectthis proposal until this area receives significant, multi-jurisdictional multimodal planning attention. ● The area needs a comprehensive, independent traffic study together with Saratoga and Santa ClaraCounty.The EIR traffic analysis contained some “common-sense”questionable model assumptions andconclusions. For example, the report found that with 2,263 new residents, only 219 new outbound tripswill occur at the peak AM commute hour, and that of those 219 outbound trips,only onewill use theclosest-to-site, northbound freeway ramp (Saratoga Avenue/Highway 85). We are seriously concernedabout the infrastructure impacts to San Jose and other jurisdictions to support: this project; additionaldevelopment at El Paseo; and the four planned/in-discussion projects within 1 mile of El Paseo, including aCostco Warehouse.

The impending strain on the existing traffic infrastructure is evident from the DEIR traffic study report(Appendix I). In reference to the Educational Facility option that was dropped, the report states:“… . analysis show that the education option wouldcause substantial increases in trafficvolumes … .Improvements to address the adverse effect on the freeway segment would require eitherwidening the freeway or reducing the project trips. Caltrans has no plans to widen SR 85 … ..This level oftrip reduction is not feasible …”While the EducationalFacility is no longer considered, the implied trafficconstraints merit more attention due the addition of 2,000+ residents in El Paseo Phase 1 and otherforeseeable projects. We request you reject this proposal until a comprehensive traffic study is completed. ● The residential density is too high, resulting in open space deficient for 2,000+ new residents.SanJose’s City Park Impact Ordinance (PIO-Municipal Code, Chapter 14.25) and Parkland Dedication Ordinance(PDO-Municipal Code, Chapter 19.38) call for6+ acresof open space for 2,000+ new residents. This is notpossible on the 10.8-acre site, therefore $18 million of in-lieu Parkland fees are required. Not only is the1.1-acre onsite park space insufficient, the project’s 1.7 acres of public open space appears to include aroadway and parking spots. Such surfaces appear to have been excluded in the Cambrian Park PlazaSignature Project open space calculations. An earlier City Planning Staff memo (09/2019) raised concernsabout the viability of the project open space proposals at that time.

San Jose Parks has the stated goal thatevery residentshould have a park within a 10-minute walk,equivalent to 0.5 mi. This area is already a park desert with there being no parkland within the adjacentBaker West neighborhood, and the closest City park – Saratoga Creek Dog Park – is0.6 mi. away (a 14-minwalk), across two extremely busy streets (Prospect, Saratoga; 6 lanes) and behind a shopping centerparking lot that may soon host a Costco.Due to thelack of park space, two school properties about 0.6 mi.from the site have been cited; however, those school fields have limited public access.District 1 isthe mostpark deficient district in San Jose with only 13 neighborhood parks. San Jose Park ActivateSJ 2020-2040shows this particular area with a “High Park need” level.This project will make a bad situation farworse.

Page3of 9
It’s critical that we reduce the residential density and/or plan the entire 30-acre parcel so that adequateparkland that conforms to the General Plan can be provided. ● At 994 dwelling units (DU),this single projectexceeds the 919 DU cited in the SJ General Plan for theentire 174-acre Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village while contributing only 13% (190 new jobs) toward the1,500-job goal.(General Plan, Appendix 5, page 3;03/24/2022). San Jose’s General Plan identifies the areaas a “commercial corridor and center urban village” for which “a modest and balanced amount of newhousing … capacity is planned”. ● The project greatly exceeds the targeted number of DUs and density but provides only a minimum ofaffordable units, whichdon’t align with the City’sRHNA allocation distribution.The Baker West andMoreland West neighborhood associations have consistently supported onsite below market rate (BMR)housing. We know that as of 03/2021, San Jose had, through 2023, met its market rate RHNA goals butonly 20% of its affordable housing goal. Our request to the Planning Commission,in fact, asked for areduction inmarket rateunits while maintaining thenumber of affordable units at 149. While City officialspraise the inclusion of theminimumnumber (15%) ofBMR units at 50% of AMI (5%), 60% of AMI (5%), and100% of AMI (5%), we askwhy isn’t El Paseo contributingmore fully to the City's RHNA allocation? ● It appears that all BMR units are concentrated at the 1777 Saratoga Avenue site in the “AffordableResidential Tower,” which is furthest away from the project’s ~1.1-acre park.That building is separatedbysix lanes of Saratoga Ave traffic from other project buildings and amenities. A City memo in 09/2019pointed out that thisproject would require two separateSignature Project applicationsbecause it islocated on two distinctly separate sites connected only by a traffic crosswalk.This single projectproposalshould be rejected and the City should, per this prior issue finding, require two Signature Projectapplications for the two distinct sites. ●Community outreach and opportunities for publicinput seem pro-forma.Despite strong communityconcerns about building heights since the earliest plans, the buildings have only increased in height, as hasthe density. The developer has failed to provide a basic rendering to help the public visualize the entireproject – all four buildings – in the existing space. Project signs posted at the site are outdated and showsignificantly more green space than the final proposal. At Community Meeting #2 held in January, thepublic was shown asinglebuilding elevation, forthe shortest, 9-story building. At that 62-minutecommunity meeting and the recent Planning Commission hearing, public comment was summarily limitedto one minute per individual.

Page4of 9

Please reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applications and require the developer to submit a moreappropriate and complete plan for the 30-acre site – one with 1) lower building heights, 2) lessresidential density, 3) more new jobs, 4) closeralignmentwith the City’s RHNA allocation distribution,and 5) one which affords new residents adequate and equitable access to parks space and amenities.

Respectfully,
Rosemary Kamei, President, Baker West Neighborhood AssociationAmy Cody, President, Moreland West Neighborhood AssociationMarc Pawliger, on behalf of the Country Lane Neighborhood Association Gary Smith, President, English Estates Neighborhood AssociationSkip Stevens, President, Westgate Village Neighborhood AssociationMichael Wright, President, Easterbrook Neighborhood AssociationDoris Livesey, President, Murdock Neighborhood AssociationChris Vasquez, President, Saratoga Woods Security Community Association Page5of 9

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

1.The El Paseo Phase 1 plan perpetuates San Jose’srole as a “housing-rich/jobs-poor” bedroomcommunity supporting businesses in neighboring cities. > El Paseo Phase 1non-residentialdensity is ~3xlower than Vallco, ~2x lower than Stevens CreekPromenade, and roughly comparable to Cambrian Park (1.2x lower)Vallco plan 47,980 sf/acreStevens Creek Promenade plan 31,500 sf/acreCambrian Park plan 18,900 sf/acreEl Paseo Phase 1 15,420 sf/acre > El Paseo Phase 1residential densityis ~2.4x higherthan SJ Cambrian Park, ~2x higher thanCupertino Vallco, and ~1.5x higher than Stevens Creek Promenade.Cambrian Park density: 39 units/acreVallco residential density: 48 “Stevens Creek Promenade residential density: 63 “El Paseo Phase 1 residential density: 92 “ (SJ General Plan calls for min 55 du/acre)

2. A San Jose Planning Department memo to the applicant on 09/24/2019identified the points belowasrequirements/issues for a Signature Project. a.“For Signature Projects, the project needs to incorporatea commercial square footage well beyondthe minimum requirement.“Scheme A minimum commercial space requirement = 17,124+ 148,304 =165,428 sqftThe current plan being voted on proposes165,949 sqft,exceeding the minimum by 521 sq ft.We do notbelieve the planned commercial space plan meets the requirement of a Signature Project. b.“The parcels that make up the project site areintersected by Saratoga Avenue and are not contiguous.Therefore,this proposal would need to be consideredas two separate Signature Projects.” c. “...the pedestrian connection identified acrossSaratoga Avenue is not adequate to understand aclear relationship that a Signature Project would require.For example, Staff notes that pedestrianconnections throughout the proposal has been created to connect the proposed area and the existingshopping center, however the design only featuresa pedestrian connection via a crosswalk to connectthe two distinctly separate sites.”

3. We believe that the El Paseo Phase 1 developmentplan does not meet the City’s requirement forjob generation.We have identified job generation concerns in the developer’s DEIR as well as in the City’s response toinputs on the DEIR. The jobs are calculated based on commercial sf. The developer is building 165,000 sffor commercial use, claiming 660 jobs (165,000/250 = 660). However, the 660 arenot new jobsbecausethe project area already has commercial and office uses totaling 126,345 sf that are being demolished.The net NEW jobs, now confirmed by the First Amendment to the Draft EIR (05/06/22) is 190.

Page6of 9
For a Signature Project, the 2040 General Plan calls for a project that “incorporates job growth capacityabove the average density of jobs/acre planned for the entire Village Planning Area”.

Per current plan,El Paseo Phase 1 would exceed thehousing capacity for the entire Urban Village butprovide only about 13% of the job capacity.Increasingcommercial sf to 195,000 would provide 310 netjobs, about 20% of targeted Urban Village job capacity.

4.Park & Open Space.The amount of park/open spaceis inconsistent with the Park Impact Ordinance(SJMC 14.25 PIO). Given the number of residents we understand that 6 acres of parkland are required.The issue of parkland has been brought up frequently by residents since the area is so deficient in publicpark space.During the Planning Commission hearing the commissioners were told that outside the 1.1 acre park theresidents could find parks or fields within 0.6-1 mil away. The closest park to the site is the SaratogaCreek Dog Park, which is 0.6 mi/14 min walk and across 8-14 lanes of traffic, depending on the building.The other park is Saratoga City’s Quito Park located about 0.8 mi/16 min walk away. The two schoolfields referred to are Prospect HS and Moreland Middle School both about 0.6 mi/14 min away. It is ourunderstanding that two school fields have limited public access.Also, please note that per plan drawings, the project open space includes a vehicular roadway andparking spots in some of the paseos (Drawings A9.03/2021; A3.7: 12/09/21 plan). We note that suchsurfaces appear to be excluded in the Cambrian Park Plaza Signature project (Drawing A3.6: 01/20/22).This issue was raised with the Planning Commission but resulted in no discussion.

5. Building heights have been raised as a concern by the community since the beginning.Despite that,the building heights have increased with time, even with the loss of ~300 Ksqft of commercial space. Thethree shortest buildings have increased from 7,7,9 stories to 9,11,11 stories and the number of unitsfrom 741 DU to 994 DU.

Somereference structures nearbyare: the 4-storyApple Headquarters in Cupertino; the 7-story KaiserHospital on Lawrence in Santa Clara; the8-story residencesat San Jose’s Santana Row; and the newlyapproved,8-story buildings at the Stevens Creek Signatureproject in San Jose, and the planned4,5,and6 story buildings at Cambrian Park Signature project.

San Jose’s Urban Village plan states that:“New developmentwithin the Urban Village should be wellintegrated within, and respectful of, and compatible with adjacent existing neighborhoods.”Thesestructures are the equivalent of residences being proposed in downtown San Jose with its diversemulti-modal transit options and extensive availability.

6. While the El Paseo Phase 1 plan provides for residential density much higher than San Jose’srequired minimum for Signature Projects (55 du/acre), it commits only to the minimum percentage ofaffordable housing units.

According to San Jose’s Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the SJ General Plan (03/2021):“ … During the first seven years of the 8.8-year RHNA period (80% of the way through the period), the Cityhas met all of its market-rate housing goal, butonly20% of its affordable housing goal. 1 “
Given the status of San Jose’s housing goals, we believe the El Paseo Phase 1 project should maintainat least 149 affordable housing units irrespective of any reduction in residences.

Page7of 9

7.The transportation infrastructure in the regionwill beput under considerable strain by this projectletalone the other 4 projectsbeing contemplated fordevelopmentwithin less than a 1-mile radius of ElPaseo.The projects in planning or early discussionare: theCostco Warehouseproject atLawrence/Prospect; thein-progress Quito Village projectnear Saratoga Ave/Cox; apotentialmulti-story housing development near Saratoga Ave/Cox;andconsideration of a 10-story mixed-usedevelopment at Lawrence/Prospectby the City of Saratoga.All of these proposed and potentialdevelopments arewithin 1 mile of El Paseo Phase 1.Much of this traffic will need access to 280 and 85via Saratoga Avenue or Lawrence Expressway. San Jose’s workforce is still tied to vehicles and freewaysthat are not particularly well served by the local transit or bicycle infrastructure

8. Responsiveness to Community Input> It was stated by the Planning Commission that the community should feel heard by the developer sincean Educational facility Option was dropped. There was some resident concern on the educational optionwhich the developer admitted early on may not come to fruition. We believe there were likely otherfactors contributing to the option being dropped most of which we are not privy to. However, what wasnot said is that the developer’s own traffic study concluded that the Educational Facility option requiredwidening of Highway 85 or an unfeasible reduction in trips. FromDEIR Appendix I, Pag 105( boldingadded):The results of the freeway segment analysis show that theeducation option would cause substantialincreases in traffic volumes(one percent or moreof freeway capacity) on one (1) of the study freewaysegments currently operating at LOS F (see Table 21). Therefore, based on CMP freeway impact criteria,one (1) of the study freeway segments would be adversely affected by the project. … Improvements toaddressthe adverse effect on the freeway segmentwould require either widening the freeway orreducing the project trips.Caltrans has no plansto widen SR 85, and the cost of widening the freewayisbeyond the capability of the project. In ordertoeliminate the adverse effect through TDM, it would benecessary to reduce project trips by 55%. This level of trip reduction is not feasible … ” We believe that was a major factor in the dropping of the Educational Facility. We did not have theopportunity to address this statement by the Planning Commissionnor was it clear that the PlanningCommission was aware of the DEIR Appendix I finding when they made their statement. > Theproject description boards on the site are wellout of dateand show a plan with a much largergreen open space which was dropped prior to the submission of the DEIR. Some residents still refer tothose drawings. >Some residents have been consistently asking forspecific views of the project from several vantagepoints.These views have never been provided. Duringpresentations, the renderings do not show theentire building or of the site with the totality of buildings. > As stated earlier, the nearby neighborhood associations have given consistent input on the buildingheights. And despite that most of the building heights and densities have only increased by severalstories. On 5//12/22, residents who received developer notifications received the following in an email:“...We realize that some people are concerned aboutthe proposed building heights and we wanted toshare the details of one of the key benefits of taller buildings: more open space to program with activitiesand to fill with greenery … .. District 1 has fewer parks than any other district in San Jose. This projectproposes approximately 3.5 acres of open space and much-needed park space for the neighborhood.

Page8of 9
Open space is created when the buildings aren’t spread out all over the site, but rather pulled intomulti-story structures and complemented with underground parking.” The communication omits references to the city open space acreage requirements or to the in-lieu feebeing negotiated with the city because of the less than required amount of on-site open space.

9. RHNA Allocation InfoP. 28, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)FINAL REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) PLAN: SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 2023-2031December 2021

10. West San Jose Multi-Modal Transportation Improvement Projecthttps://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/projects-planning/west-san-jos-mtip Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee - Major Investment Planshttp://www.sjdistrict1.com/stevens-creek-corridor.html

MTIP PROJECT TIMELINE
● 2019: ○ Urban Village Plan/transportation vision outreach● 2020: ○ Existing conditions analysis● 2021: ○ Spring: Community outreach○ Summer: Initial projects/programs/policies proposed○ Fall: Community outreach○ Winter: Final draft plan developed● 2022: ○ Final draft plan presented to City Council Page9of 9
6/13/22, 11:19 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQAI… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. "PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)”
Michael Thompson <
Sun 6/12/2022 5:49 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

With reference to "PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED- USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)”
Since we moved into the El Paseo Shopping Center’s adjoining neighborhood in 1975, the El Paseo site has undergone at least two architectural and convenience changes. The initial configuration was park and then walk to the myriad of one story shops through park like greenery with plenty of trees and open spaces, a relaxing shopping experience; then the site was torn down and replaced with the current configuration: park in front of the desired one story shop and shop to your hearts content. The greatest challenge to parking was on the weekends when AMC was showing a series of block buster movies; navigating a jam packed Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway before and after the movie was also a challenge.

The proposed 2022 configuration attempts to mimic the casual shopping experience by including an insufficiently sized park plus building heights that significantly exceed the surrounding commercial building heights plus an architecture that abandons the neighborhood spirit. Another egregious affront to the concept of a neighborhood shopping center is the proposed placement of all below market apartments in one building distant from the core of the shopping center. These units should be integrated into the mix of the other buildings.

The 2022 configuration of the proposed development is only a portion of the total land available.

It would be interesting to be aware of the totality of the development. Maybe some of the mitigating issues ( such as the new traffic patterns due to the influx of about 1900 people in the development) could be resolved if the eight involved neighborhood associations were able to envision the true nature of the rest of the configuration.

With respect, it is the involved eight neighborhood associations desire to see that the 2022 construction permit be rejected so that the entire project can be portrayed properly to the neighborhood associations and to the City Council to properly assess the true impact on traffic, pedestrian safety, and architectural integrity.

Best regards,
Mike Thompson , Moreland West Neighborhood Association past President

With reference to "PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)”

Since we moved into the El Paseo Shopping Center’s adjoining neighborhood in 1975, the El Paseo site has undergone at least two architectural and convenience changes. The initial configuration was park and then walk to the myriad of one story shops through park like greenery with plenty of trees and open spaces, a relaxing shopping experience; then the site was torn down and replaced with the current configuration: park in front of the desired one story shop and shop to your hearts content. The greatest challenge to parking was on the weekends when AMC was showing a series of block buster movies; navigating a jam packed Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway before and after the movie was also a challenge.

The 2022 configuration of the proposed development is only a portion of the total land available. It would be interesting to be aware of the totality of the development. Maybe some of the mitigating issues ( such as the new traffic patterns due to the influx of about 1900 people in the development) could be resolved if the eight involved neighborhood associations were able to envision the true nature of the rest of the configuration.

With respect, it is the involved neighborhood associations desire to see that the 2022 construction permit be rejected so that the entire project can be portrayed properly to the neighborhood associations and to the City Council to properly assess the true impact on traffic, pedestrian safety, and architectural integrity.

Best regards,
Mike Thompson , Moreland West Neighborhood Association past President 6/13/22, 3:09 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2 PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)
Jim Sera < >
Mon 6/13/2022 1:49 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Mayor Liccardo,
This message is in reference to the upcoming vote for the development of the El Paseo De Saratoga shopping center property. I request that you vote NO on the proposed development because of several reasons:

- The developer proposes 11 story high-rise buildings. This is WAY TOO HIGH and will affect the surrounding community by making people feel claustrophobic and may even affect aircraft. A more reasonable height would be 3 or 4 stories or at most 7 stories like other developments in Santa Clara and San Jose.

- The density of the housing is too high: 994 apartments = 92 dwelling units/acre. San Jose Signature Projects require 55 dwelling units/acre. This will make it feel like living in downtown San Jose and will lower property values.

- There is not enough park space set aside for the expected number of residents of the area. - This development with an expected 2000+ new residents will add a lot more traffic on Saratoga Ave and Lawrence Expwy especially with the planned Costco store on Prospect Ave at Lawrence. There will be more traffic accidents including those involving pedestrians and it will take longer to get anywhere.

- I foresee longer lines at local businesses and product shortages because of the increased demand from the added residents. I frequent the businesses in this location as well as the Westgate Shopping Center and the Westgate West Shopping Center on a daily basis and don't look forward to dealing with crowded establishments and lack of parking spaces.

I urge you to do the right thing and vote no to the proposed high-rise development.

Thanks,
Jim Sera

6/13/22, 3:18 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
Re: item 10.2; Reject the Rezoning and PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Mixed Use Project PD Permit PDC19-049 & PD20-006
Roberta Witte < >
Mon 6/13/2022 2:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Gary Smith < >

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

Mayor Liccardo and City Council Members.

Please do not proceed with a vote on this proposed project. It is not appropriate for the space and not what the residents want.

The height and density of this project is not appropriate for our neighborhood. We do understand the need for housing and jobs in this area but please require the developers to meet and work with our Neighborhood Associations. We are willing to work for appropriate number of housing units, AFH and space for local businesses but need height & density limits.

Please reject the rezoning and PD Permit applications and require the developer to submit a more appropriate and complete plan for the 30-acre site. One with 1)lower building heights, 2) less residential density, 3) more new jobs,
The buildings are significantly taller and of greater density than two nearby San Jose Signature Projects. El Paseo Phase 1 proposes 92 units/acre with buildings at 9, 10.5, 11, and 12 stories. The community will support buildings up to 8 stories, which is more appropriate for the area and more in line with other Signature Projects.

Despite strong community concerns about building heights since the earliest plans, the buildings have only increased in height, as has the density. The developer has failed to provide a basic rendering to help the public visualize the entire project – all four buildings – in the existing space.

Our neighborhood does understand need for housing and local jobs, but this project is too dense and too tall.

We understand that the City of San Jose needs to permit a significant amount of new housing, and we support reasonable growth. The community has raised serious issues, too many of which have been inadequately explained away, “mitigated,” or ignored. It should not be this way and the current proposal should be rejected.

Do not rush this project through; it requires much additional planning

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you,
Roberta Witte
Board Member, English Estates NA

[External Email]
El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed-Use Village (Signature Project) Shelley Hoyt <
Mon 6/13/2022 8:53 PM
To: City Clerk < The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo < District1 < District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
<
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

To whom it may concern:

I sent the email message below to a few people on May 16th. I do not see it listed on the site showing leers from the public, so I am resending it.

-------------------------------

I have been a resident of San Jose, District 1, for 45 years and I live within walking distance of El Paseo. I am wring today to express my concern about the high-density project planned for El Paseo and addional developments at nearby properes. I have expressed my concerns before at community meengs and in wring to the developer. Each me, they listen politely and then the response I get is basically that state and city laws allow them to expedite the project and do what they want. Well, I’m not too keen on those laws or on people who use them without regard for the impact on the neighborhoods around those projects.

I am not against all development, but the proposed density and 10-12 story buildings are inappropriate for the area.

This area consists of all one- and two-story buildings, with rare excepon. We can see the mountains in the distance from many points. Building such high-density structures will change the character of this area.

Most of us bought our homes in this area because it was the best neighborhood that we could aﬀord, and aer struggling for many years to make the mortgage payments, developments like this will hinder our quality of life, making it less safe in our neighborhoods, increasing traﬃc, and turning a comparavely quiet neighborhood into crowded space.

Bringing 994 new housing units—not 994 people, but 994 housing units!—concentrated in this small area increases the populaon in this area considerably, and we will feel the impact of so many more people in an already mature area.

Here are some of my speciﬁc concerns:

· Police support. We already do not have enough police support for this area, with increased road shows, property thes, car and home break-ins, catalyc converter thes, and so on. Campbell is our neighbor; it is discouraging to hear the police-to-populaon rao that Campbell has, and then compare that to the raos in this area of San Jose. Crime is so blatant that criminals in this area don’t even appear to worry about surveillance cameras.
·
Traﬃc. There is very lile public transportaon in this area. I know they did a traﬃc study for this development, but it appears that they did it during the pandemic when traﬃc was signiﬁcantly lighter than usual. We already have so many traﬃc lights between Fallbrook Avenue and Lawrence Expressway that traﬃc crawls and it takes much longer than it should to go such a short distance.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. · Ulies. We already do not have enough water to support our exisng homes, and recently PG&E announced that we will not have enough electricity for the heat of summer and to expect blackouts. Bring in 994 new apartments that will all use air condioning all summer? No thanks. And to reduce water use I’ve already reduced the number of showers I take and the recycling I do because everything has to be rinsed clean, and we have to cut back on water use or be ﬁned.

There are many problems with the El Paseo Redevelopment project…but that is only the start of the problems.

This area is where three cies—San Jose, Campbell, and Saratoga—merge seamlessly from one city to the next within just a few blocks. The current plans include another high-rise, high-density building across the street from the El Paseo development that will bring in more residents and traﬃc; then there’s a new Costco planned in this area; and from what I hear, Saratoga is planning to add more development near the San Jose border. Is each city making decisions independently, without coordinang with areas like this where they all merge? Are all decisions being made based on the tax dollars that the cies can collect, and the heck with the residents that it will impact?

Have you seen the diﬀerences in what is planned for my area, versus what is happening near Santana Row and other projects? In case you haven’t seen it, I’ve aached a ﬂyer that is going around, and it sure makes it sound like we are the poor people who are being abused while richer areas get much less density. The laws might let developers do this, but it doesn’t make them almost double what the law appears to require.

Thank you for your consideraon.

Sincerely,
Shelley Hoyt

El Paseo Mixed-Used Signature Project — 10.8 acres
Phase 1 of 30-acre shopping center redevelopment
•4 buildings / 6 towers: 9, 10, 10, 11, 11 & 12 stories. Tallest (4A) is 132 ft. — For comparison, Santana Row and the new Stevens Creek Promenade project top out at 8 stories •994 residential units = 92 dwelling units/acre (55 du/acre required by CIty of SJ for Signature Projects) — Denser residential than projects closer to transit (2x Vallco, 1.5x Stevens Creek Promenade) — All apartments, no home ownership
— Only minimum number of affordable units (15% required), potentially in one building — (100) Studios; (676) 1-Bedrooms; (553) 2-Bedrooms; (74) 3-Bedrooms •1,243 residential parking spaces for estimated 1,600-1,800 new residents (1.25 spaces/unit) — 1,403 residential spaces needed at 1 space/Studio; 1.25 spaces/1B; 1.75 spaces/2B; 2 spaces/3B — 1,944 total parking spaces for commercial + residents •Only 165,000 sf of new commercial, anchored by Whole Foods — Smaller percentage of commercial/office space than other projects (Vallco, Stevens Creek Promenade) — A major City of SJ goal is job generation to increase tax revenues — SJ is housing-rich/jobs-poor and pays for infrastructure for commuters to cities with more business revenue El Paseo Redevelopment
Phase I

[External Email]
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Urgent Attention: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-

USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT
City Clerk <
Tue 6/14/2022 7:49 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Kasthuri Veeraraghavan <
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 11:13 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo < District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
<
Cc: City Clerk <
Subject: Fwd: Urgent Aenon: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT

To the City Council,
As a resident of West San Jose, Murdock neighborhood, I write to you about the El Paseo Saratoga development.

This project is way too large in size and scope, and it does not meet the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. This project would increase traﬃc congeson which will already be strained by the new Costco at Westgate West a few blocks away. The surrounding roads and infrastructure do not support the addion of 2000+ new residents living in ~1000 high- density apartments in this area. We do not want another Santana Row in our neighborhoods. We do not want another "Winchester housing project" currently under construcon oﬀ 280/Winchester Blvd in our neighborhoods. We do not want 11-12 story buildings in West San Jose like the awkward-looking Pruneyard Tower in Campbell. The City of Sunnyvale has a limit of 4-6 story buildings ... there is a reason for this restricon prohibing uncontrolled growth by the developers who do not live hereI

There would also be a huge impact to local schools, public parks, city services, and quality of life in the West Valley Area.

Please ﬁnd aached the leer from eight of our strong local neighborhood associaons for addional details and jusﬁcaon for denial of this project.

Again, please vote NO on this project at your meeng on Tuesday 6/14/2022.

City Clerk, please add this to the record for the subject project.

Respecully,
Kasthuri Veeraraghavan

Page1of 9

Page4of 9

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Page7of 9

9. RHNA Allocation InfoP. 28, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)FINAL REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) PLAN: SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 2023-2031December 2021

MTIP PROJECT TIMELINE
● 2019: ○ Urban Village Plan/transportation vision outreach● 2020: ○ Existing conditions analysis● 2021: ○ Spring: Community outreach○ Summer: Initial projects/programs/policies proposed○ Fall: Community outreach○ Winter: Final draft plan developed● 2022: ○ Final draft plan presented to City Council Page9of 9
[External Email]
El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed-Use Village (Signature Project) Shelley Hoyt <
Mon 6/13/2022 9:08 PM
To: City Clerk < The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo < District1 < District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
<
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear Council Members,

I sent the following email message to Cassidy Kohl in Chappie Jones’s oﬃce on June 2nd, describing my thoughts aer aending the very disappoinng Planning Commission meeng on May 25th. As I keep thinking about this situaon, I think my points deserve a wider audience so I am forwarding it to each of you. Here is the message I sent. --------------------------------------------

In your response to me you opened the door for further communicaon by saying to let you know if I have other insights to share. I decided to take advantage of that to let you know my thoughts about the Planning Commission meeng that I aended about the El Paseo project.

Unfortunately I didn’t take notes during the meeng so I can’t remember all the details, but I remember being upset during the meeng and when the meeng was over.

Did anyone on the Commission noce that every person who started their statement by saying that they live in this neighborhood pointed out a valid concern about the project? And that everyone who said they didn’t live here then discounted the residents’ concerns? Residents have a vested interest in this area. The developer and companies associated with the project have a vested interest in making money. Their comments should not be given the same weight as the people who are directly impacted.

Residents were told that they had to limit their remarks to two minutes, so they prepared their remarks to ﬁt into that meframe—only to be told at the last minute that they would only have half that me to speak. Many of the residents spoke ﬁrst, which allowed the developer and their cronies to rebut our comments but did not give the residents a chance to respond to the rebuals that were not on target.

This developer wants the city to rezone this area from Commercial to Mixed Use and they brag about bringing in jobs. But from what I’ve heard, most of the jobs they are bringing in are retail, which are comparavely low paying jobs, so most of those employees will not be able to aﬀord to live in the apartments they are building. They likely will have to drive to get here because public transportaon is minimal. Personally, I want more retail here; having more retail impacts my life in a posive way. I won’t have to go as far to purchase the things I need. I would rather have more retail than more residents, who add to the traﬃc woes and the environmental and crime issues we deal with.

I was parcularly upset about the comments about the traﬃc study. They really think people are going to drive to Lawrence Expressway to access Highway 280 instead of going down Saratoga Avenue and geng onto Highway 85? Have any of them tried driving to Lawrence Expressway when Prospect High School is beginning or ending their day? And what a nightmare when Costco opens at the corner of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Another thing that concerns me considerably is that this project covers a comparavely small secon of this corner—they call it Phase 1. What is the plan for the next phase, and the phase aer that? Once this precedent is set, they’ll say that this is a high density area so let’s ﬁll in all the rest of this acreage with lots more high density. This development changes the character of our neighborhood, even at lower density, and once that changes, it will be used as a precedent to connue in that vein. The vast majority of the buildings in this area are one- and two-story buildings. There are a few smaller buildings that are a couple more stories, but this project does not ﬁt in this area. We already have a lot of aﬀordable housing here because there are many two-story apartment buildings and low income housing in this area.

Which reminds me, it was parcularly insulng to hear that person who menoned the complaints were coming from “rich” homeowners. Rich? Do you think we live in the pricey areas of Saratoga, Los Gatos, or Atherton? We are people who have worked incredibly hard to make our mortgage payments and maintain our homes. We are not “rich.” If I was rich, I would have more than 10 feet between my house and my neighbor’s house. I am not poor, but I am far from “rich,” and I expect that is true for the majority of us who live here.

At the end of the Planning Commission meeng I felt that the developers had packed the comments so that the Commiee could jusfy moving the project forward as they want—as if they are saying “We got public feedback and it was half negave and half posive so we can move forward”—and no one is really addressing the valid concerns of the residents. This enre process has been incredibly disheartening. The community has been engaged since the beginning, and since the beginning we’ve been ignored. The developing company keeps saying that they’ve had many meengs with the community. That is true. But they have primarily ignored our feedback, so those community meengs were a complete waste of our me.

As a resident, I feel bulldozed by a rich company and a city with a goal that I am not clear on. It will not solve the homeless problem; it will not provide much “aﬀordable” housing. It will provide density and it will reduce the quality of life for local residents, and that will reduce the value of our homes and the quality of our lifestyle.

Sincerely,

Shelley Hoyt
San Jose, CA 95130

[External Email]
[External Email]
Item 10.2: Reject the Rezoning and pD Permit for EL paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed use project (PDC19-049&PD20-006)
priyanka jain <
Tue 6/14/2022 9:10 AM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear Mayor Liccardo and City council members
I am a resident from Baker West Neighbourhood and writing with respect to El Paseo Village development , which has been a point of constant concern for us. I would like to re- bring my concern for this project to the table, and hope that you would finally hear from us.
- There have been so many on-going key developments planned in this 1.5 miles radius of El Paseo ( multi-story on cox/saratoga, multi-story residential buildings on prospect/saratoga, New Costco and more townhouses in Quito village). Overall traffic impact of all these developments along with ~ 1000 units in this project has not been completely assessed.
- Do we have any traffic report on what the situation would look like? There is no good public transport available in this area. The nearest light rail station is 3 miles away in Campbell. The nearest Caltrain station is 8 milesaway in Sunnyvale. During the work week, the area is served by only (2) northbound “Express 101” buses in the AM and (2) southbound “Express 101” buses in the PM. These 2000+ new residents can create a really bad traffic situation in the area which is already densely populated. We mostly depend on cars to commute to work or other stuff.
- I understand that San jose has the objective to increase residential units, However, I am not able to find even a single parallel in term units density and high rise story this project is
a) BASCOM STATION (DICK'S CENTER) PROJECT : 590 residential units / 5-6 stories b) BLOSSOM HILL : 147 affordable house units

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. c) CAMPBELL AVE MIXED USE : 203 units / 4 storie
- The buildings are significantly taller and of greater density than two nearby San Jose Signature Projects. The recently approved Stevens Creek Promenade Signature Project – which sits directly on the Stevens Creek Corridor, a major focus area for transit investment by VTA, Santa Clara County, and the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara and San Jose – has 8-story buildings with 63 units/acre. The Cambrian Park Plaza Signature Project, near 85/Union, has 39 units/acre with the tallest building at 6 stories. El Paseo Phase 1 proposes 92 units/acre with buildings at 9, 10.5, 11, and 12 stories. - The residential density is too high, resulting in open space deficient for 2,000+ new residents. San Jose’s City Park Impact Ordinance (PIO-Municipal Code, Chapter 14.25) and Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO-Municipal Code, Chapter 19.38) call for 6+ acres of open space for 2,000+ new residents. This is not possible on the 10.8-acre site, therefore $18 million of in-lieu Parkland fees are required. Not only is the 1.1-acre onsite park space insufficient, the project’s 1.7 acres of public open space appears to include a roadway and parking spots. Such surfaces appear to have been excluded in the Cambrian Park Plaza Signature Project open space calculations. Why is it done that way in this project? Deficient open space can lead to people parking in our neighborhoods. - Do we have to report on the impact of other amenities like schools, parks etc. - The complete details of the project have yet not been provided. Only 1/3 of project details are out. We still don't understand the overall impact when the whole 30-acre site will be developed. I think planning is the key to any good development and should not the whole 30-acre site plan be assessed in entirety and then passed. I am not sure why the city has not gone this route?

Overall, I think community requests to reduce the building height should be seriously considered and brought to the bench. After all, we are staying in a democratic country and democracy does state that 'Govt of the people, for the people , by the people.'. There have been so many appeals done by all neighbouring neighbourhoods and i hope that council would really consider our concerns.

Regards
Priyanka Jain
Regards
Priyanka Jain

[External Email]
Fw: EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT) City Clerk <
Tue 6/14/2022 10:01 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Vikram Modak <
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 9:50 AM
To: City Clerk < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ District1 < District2
< District3 < District4 < District5
< District 6 < District7 < District8
< District9 < District 10 <
Subject: EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

June 14, 2022
Mayor Sam Liccardo
Vice-Mayor Charles Jones
Councilmember Sylvia Arenas
Councilmember Magdalena Carrasco
Councilmember David Cohen
Councilmember Devora Davis
Councilmember Maya Esparza
Councilmember Pam Foley
Councilmember Sergio Jimenez
Councilmember Matt Mahan
Councilmember Raul Peralez
Re: PDC19-049 & PD20-006
“EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)” Council Agenda Item – June 14
Mayor Liccardo & San Jose Councilmembers:

The undersigned (8) neighborhood organizations urge you to reject the Rezoning and PD Permit

applications to redevelop a portion of the 30-acre El Paseo de Saratoga shopping center located in

District 1 at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Quito/Lawrence.

As part of the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village defined in Envision San Jose 2040, the El Paseo Phase 1 project will set the stage for future development of our Urban Village area. Because our Urban Village is currently slated for planning in “Horizon 3,” El Paseo Phase 1 is being submitted as a “Signature Project” yet it seems to fail many of the requirements of that designation.

Surrounding neighborhoods, new residents, and the City deserve a better project to meet San Jose’s needs. Longstanding, well-considered community concerns about density, building heights, traffic impacts, and open spaces have not been acknowledged by the developer or the City. As a result, separate from this letter, District 1 residents and affected Saratoga neighbors are circulating a petition opposing building heights greater than 8 stories and requesting a more comprehensive traffic analysis for the area.

Page 1 of 9 ends

It must plan well and comprehensively. The community has raised serious issues, too many of which have been inadequately explained away, “mitigated,” or ignored. It should not be this way and the current proposal should be rejected.

to the Planning Commission that the project yield 195,000 sq ft to deliver 310 net new jobs. This aspect alone should disqualify the project as a Signature Project and we request you reject this proposal as it is currently presented.
● The area is not well served by mass transit, nor has it been identified as an area of focus or growth as demonstrated by its exclusion from the West San Jose Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP). The nearest light rail station is 3 miles away in Campbell. The nearest Caltrain station is 8 miles away in Sunnyvale. During the work week, the area is served by only (2) northbound “Express 101” buses in the AM and (2) southbound “Express 101” buses in the PM. The other 3 bus lines serve a more limited area and have variable service frequencies during the day. There is no dedicated bus drop off/pick up location outside the roadway. Compare this to Valley Fair, which has a dedicated transit hub for buses that go frequently to surrounding transit hubs.

Saratoga Ave from the El Paseo site to Stevens Creek Blvd has the worst VTA bike safety rating of "Extreme

Page 2 of 9 ends

Caution". Lawrence Expressway from the site all the way to 280 and to the Caltrain station is also rated “Extreme Caution”. There are no direct bikeways to downtown San Jose. Even when examining existing bikeways, there are issues that, per VTA criteria, would warrant “Extreme Caution”. For example, the Campbell Avenue bikeway has no specific rating but contains numerous elements cited in the VTA’s “Extreme Caution” rating such as: a narrow lane lacking a 3-foot bike lane buffer; traffic speeds at >35mph; numerous driveways on the right, and buses. Compare this to Cupertino Main Street, which is surrounded by physically protected bike lanes and green bike lane markings. While we align with the desire to support more travel by resident bicycles, the current infrastructure does not well support that transportation mode.

Despite these transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure and safety deficiencies, as of 05/2022, the area has not been included in past years of planning for the West San Jose MTIP. We request you reject this proposal until this area receives significant, multi-jurisdictional multimodal planning attention. ● The area needs a comprehensive, independent traffic study together with Saratoga and Santa Clara County. The EIR traffic analysis contained some “common-sense” questionable model assumptions and conclusions. For example, the report found that with 2,263 new residents, only 219 new outbound trips will occur at the peak AM commute hour, and that of those 219 outbound trips, only one will use the closest-to-site, northbound freeway ramp (Saratoga Avenue/Highway 85). We are seriously concerned about the infrastructure impacts to San Jose and other jurisdictions to support: this project; additional development at El Paseo; and the four planned/in-discussion projects within 1 mile of El Paseo, including a Costco Warehouse.

The impending strain on the existing traffic infrastructure is evident from the DEIR traffic study report (Appendix I). In reference to the Educational Facility option that was dropped, the report states:
“.... analysis show that the education option would cause substantial increases in traffic volumes....Improvements to address the adverse effect on the freeway segment would require either widening the freeway or reducing the project trips. Caltrans has no plans to widen SR 85.....This level of trip reduction is not feasible...” While the Educational Facility is no longer considered, the implied traffic constraints merit more attention due the addition of 2,000+ residents in El Paseo Phase 1 and other foreseeable projects. We request you reject this proposal until a comprehensive traffic study is completed. ● The residential density is too high, resulting in open space deficient for 2,000+ new residents. San Jose’s City Park Impact Ordinance (PIO-Municipal Code, Chapter 14.25) and Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO-Municipal Code, Chapter 19.38) call for 6+ acres of open space for 2,000+ new residents. This is not possible on the 10.8-acre site, therefore $18 million of in-lieu Parkland fees are required. Not only is the

1.1-acre onsite park space insufficient, the project’s 1.7 acres of public open space appears to include a roadway and parking spots. Such surfaces appear to have been excluded in the Cambrian Park Plaza Signature Project open space calculations. An earlier City Planning Staff memo (09/2019) raised concerns about the viability of the project open space proposals at that time.

San Jose Parks has the stated goal that every resident should have a park within a 10-minute walk, equivalent to 0.5 mi. This area is already a park desert with there being no parkland within the adjacent Baker West neighborhood, and the closest City park – Saratoga Creek Dog Park – is 0.6 mi. away (a 14-min walk), across two extremely busy streets (Prospect, Saratoga; 6 lanes) and behind a shopping center parking lot that may soon host a Costco. Due to the lack of park space, two school properties about 0.6 mi. from the site have been cited; however, those school fields have limited public access. District 1 is the most park deficient district in San Jose with only 13 neighborhood parks. San Jose Park ActivateSJ 2020-2040 shows this particular area with a “High Park need” level. This project will make a bad situation far worse.

Page 3 of 9 ends

It’s critical that we reduce the residential density and/or plan the entire 30-acre parcel so that adequate parkland that conforms to the General Plan can be provided. ● At 994 dwelling units (DU), this single project exceeds the 919 DU cited in the SJ General Plan for the entire 174-acre Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village while contributing only 13% (190 new jobs) toward the 1,500-job goal. (General Plan, Appendix 5, page 3; 03/24/2022). San Jose’s General Plan identifies the area as a “commercial corridor and center urban village” for which “a modest and balanced amount of new housing ... capacity is planned”.
● The project greatly exceeds the targeted number of DUs and density but provides only a minimum of affordable units, which don’t align with the City’s RHNA allocation distribution. The Baker West and Moreland West neighborhood associations have consistently supported onsite below market rate (BMR) housing. We know that as of 03/2021, San Jose had, through 2023, met its market rate RHNA goals but only 20% of its affordable housing goal. Our request to the Planning Commission, in fact, asked for a reduction in market rate units while maintaining the number of affordable units at 149. While City officials praise the inclusion of the minimum number (15%) of BMR units at 50% of AMI (5%), 60% of AMI (5%), and 100% of AMI (5%), we ask why isn’t El Paseo contributing more fully to the City's RHNA allocation? ● It appears that all BMR units are concentrated at the 1777 Saratoga Avenue site in the “Affordable Residential Tower,” which is furthest away from the project’s ~1.1-acre park. That building is separated by six lanes of Saratoga Ave traffic from other project buildings and amenities. A City memo in 09/2019 pointed out that this project would require two separate Signature Project applications because it is located on two distinctly separate sites connected only by a traffic crosswalk. This single project proposal should be rejected and the City should, per this prior issue finding, require two Signature Project applications for the two distinct sites.
● Community outreach and opportunities for public input seem pro-forma. Despite strong community concerns about building heights since the earliest plans, the buildings have only increased in height, as has the density. The developer has failed to provide a basic rendering to help the public visualize the entire project – all four buildings – in the existing space. Project signs posted at the site are outdated and show significantly more green space than the final proposal. At Community Meeting #2 held in January, the public was shown a single building elevation, for the shortest, 9-story building. At that 62-minute community meeting and the recent Planning Commission hearing, public comment was summarily limited to one minute per individual.

Page 4 of 9 ends

Please reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applications and require the developer to submit a more appropriate and complete plan for the 30-acre site – one with 1) lower building heights, 2) less residential density, 3) more new jobs, 4) closer alignment with the City’s RHNA allocation distribution, and 5) one which affords new residents adequate and equitable access to parks space and amenities.

Respectfully,
Rosemary Kamei, President, Baker West Neighborhood Association Amy Cody, President, Moreland West Neighborhood Association Marc Pawliger, on behalf of the Country Lane Neighborhood Association Gary Smith, President, English Estates Neighborhood Association Skip Stevens, President, Westgate Village Neighborhood Association Michael Wright, President, Easterbrook Neighborhood Association Doris Livesey, President, Murdock Neighborhood Association Chris Vasquez, President, Saratoga Woods Security Community Association

Page 5 of 9 ends

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

1. The El Paseo Phase 1 plan perpetuates San Jose’s role as a “housing-rich/jobs-poor” bedroom community supporting businesses in neighboring cities.
> El Paseo Phase 1 non-residential density is ~3x lower than Vallco, ~2x lower than Stevens Creek Promenade, and roughly comparable to Cambrian Park (1.2x lower) Vallco plan 47,980 sf/acre
Stevens Creek Promenade plan 31,500 sf/acre
Cambrian Park plan 18,900 sf/acre
El Paseo Phase 1 15,420 sf/acre
> El Paseo Phase 1 residential density is ~2.4x higher than SJ Cambrian Park, ~2x higher than Cupertino Vallco, and ~1.5x higher than Stevens Creek Promenade.

Cambrian Park density: 39 units/acre
Vallco residential density: 48 “
Stevens Creek Promenade residential density: 63 “
El Paseo Phase 1 residential density: 92 “ (SJ General Plan calls for min 55 du/acre)

Therefore, this proposal would need to be considered as two separate Signature Projects.” c. “... the pedestrian connection identified across Saratoga Avenue is not adequate to understand a clear relationship that a Signature Project would require. For example, Staff notes that pedestrian connections throughout the proposal has been created to connect the proposed area and the existing shopping center, however the design only features a pedestrian connection via a crosswalk to connect the two distinctly separate sites .”

3. We believe that the El Paseo Phase 1 development plan does not meet the City’s requirement for job generation.

We have identified job generation concerns in the developer’s DEIR as well as in the City’s response to inputs on the DEIR. The jobs are calculated based on commercial sf. The developer is building 165,000 sf for commercial use, claiming 660 jobs (165,000/250 = 660). However, the 660 are not new jobs because the project area already has commercial and office uses totaling 126,345 sf that are being demolished.

The net NEW jobs, now confirmed by the First Amendment to the Draft EIR (05/06/22) is 190.

Page 6 of 9 ends

For a Signature Project, the 2040 General Plan calls for a project that “incorporates job growth capacity above the average density of jobs/acre planned for the entire Village Planning Area”.

Per current plan, El Paseo Phase 1 would exceed the housing capacity for the entire Urban Village but provide only about 13% of the job capacity. Increasing commercial sf to 195,000 would provide 310 net jobs, about 20% of targeted Urban Village job capacity.

4. Park & Open Space. The amount of park/open space is inconsistent with the Park Impact Ordinance (SJMC 14.25 PIO). Given the number of residents we understand that 6 acres of parkland are required.

The issue of parkland has been brought up frequently by residents since the area is so deficient in public park space.

During the Planning Commission hearing the commissioners were told that outside the 1.1 acre park the residents could find parks or fields within 0.6-1 mil away. The closest park to the site is the Saratoga Creek Dog Park, which is 0.6 mi/14 min walk and across 8-14 lanes of traffic, depending on the building.

The other park is Saratoga City’s Quito Park located about 0.8 mi/16 min walk away. The two school fields referred to are Prospect HS and Moreland Middle School both about 0.6 mi/14 min away. It is our understanding that two school fields have limited public access.

Also, please note that per plan drawings, the project open space includes a vehicular roadway and parking spots in some of the paseos (Drawings A9.03/2021; A3.7: 12/09/21 plan). We note that such surfaces appear to be excluded in the Cambrian Park Plaza Signature project (Drawing A3.6: 01/20/22).

This issue was raised with the Planning Commission but resulted in no discussion.

5. Building heights have been raised as a concern by the community since the beginning. Despite that, the building heights have increased with time, even with the loss of ~300 Ksqft of commercial space. The three shortest buildings have increased from 7,7,9 stories to 9,11,11 stories and the number of units from 741 DU to 994 DU.

Some reference structures nearby are: the 4-story Apple Headquarters in Cupertino; the 7-story Kaiser Hospital on Lawrence in Santa Clara; the 8-story residences at San Jose’s Santana Row; and the newly approved, 8-story buildings at the Stevens Creek Signature project in San Jose, and the planned 4,5,and 6 story buildings at Cambrian Park Signature project.

San Jose’s Urban Village plan states that: “New development within the Urban Village should be well integrated within, and respectful of, and compatible with adjacent existing neighborhoods.” These structures are the equivalent of residences being proposed in downtown San Jose with its diverse multi-modal transit options and extensive availability.

6. While the El Paseo Phase 1 plan provides for residential density much higher than San Jose’s required minimum for Signature Projects (55 du/acre), it commits only to the minimum percentage of affordable housing units.

According to San Jose’s Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the SJ General Plan (03/2021):
“...During the first seven years of the 8.8-year RHNA period (80% of the way through the period), the City has met all of its market-rate housing goal, but only 20% of its affordable housing goal. 1 “
Given the status of San Jose’s housing goals, we believe the El Paseo Phase 1 project should maintain at least 149 affordable housing units irrespective of any reduction in residences.

Page 7 of 9 ends

7. The transportation infrastructure in the region will be put under considerable strain by this project let alone the other 4 projects being contemplated for development within less than a 1-mile radius of El Paseo. The projects in planning or early discussion are: the Costco Warehouse project at Lawrence/Prospect; the in-progress Quito Village project near Saratoga Ave/Cox; a potential multi-story housing development near Saratoga Ave/Cox; and consideration of a 10-story mixed-use development at Lawrence/Prospect by the City of Saratoga. All of these proposed and potential developments are within 1 mile of El Paseo Phase 1. Much of this traffic will need access to 280 and 85 via Saratoga Avenue or Lawrence Expressway. San Jose’s workforce is still tied to vehicles and freeways that are not particularly well served by the local transit or bicycle infrastructure

The results of the freeway segment analysis show that the education option would cause substantial increases in traffic volumes (one percent or more of freeway capacity) on one (1) of the study freeway segments currently operating at LOS F (see Table 21). Therefore, based on CMP freeway impact criteria, one (1) of the study freeway segments would be adversely affected by the project. ...Improvements to address the adverse effect on the freeway segment would require either widening the freeway or reducing the project trips. Caltrans has no plans to widen SR 85, and the cost of widening the freeway is beyond the capability of the project. In order to eliminate the adverse effect through TDM, it would be necessary to reduce project trips by 55%. This level of trip reduction is not feasible...” We believe that was a major factor in the dropping of the Educational Facility. We did not have the opportunity to address this statement by the Planning Commission nor was it clear that the Planning Commission was aware of the DEIR Appendix I finding when they made their statement. > The project description boards on the site are well out of date and show a plan with a much larger green open space which was dropped prior to the submission of the DEIR. Some residents still refer to those drawings.
> Some residents have been consistently asking for specific views of the project from several vantage points. These views have never been provided. During presentations, the renderings do not show the entire building or of the site with the totality of buildings. > As stated earlier, the nearby neighborhood associations have given consistent input on the building heights. And despite that most of the building heights and densities have only increased by several stories. On 5//12/22, residents who received developer notifications received the following in an email:
“... We realize that some people are concerned about the proposed building heights and we wanted to share the details of one of the key benefits of taller buildings: more open space to program with activities and to fill with greenery..... District 1 has fewer parks than any other district in San Jose. This project proposes approximately 3.5 acres of open space and much-needed park space for the neighborhood.

Page 8 of 9 ends

Open space is created when the buildings aren’t spread out all over the site, but rather pulled into multi-story structures and complemented with underground parking.” The communication omits references to the city open space acreage requirements or to the in-lieu fee being negotiated with the city because of the less than required amount of on-site open space.

9. RHNA Allocation Info
P. 28, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
FINAL REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) PLAN: SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 2023-2031 December 2021

10. West San Jose Multi-Modal Transportation Improvement Project https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/projects-planning/we st-san-jos-mtip
Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee - Major Investment Plans http://www.sjdistrict1.com/stevens-creek-corridor.html

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. ○ Final draft plan presented to City Council

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources El Paseo proposed development
Marcia Fariss <
Tue 6/14/2022 10:32 AM
To: City Clerk <
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

This project as presented should never be approved, and certainly not ever built! It is outrageously dense and there are NO, I repeat NO buildings for at least for several miles in any direction that are taller than 3 stories. El Paseo should not be allowed to have any buildings taller than 4 stories! Anything beyond that will be an eyesore and not in keeping with the area.

In terms of density, this project is beyond the pale! This is already a congested area with frequent gridlock occuring during the day. As presented, this project will cause gridlock throughout the entire day! Two more comments: the assessment that the project will use no more water than the center did at its fullest capacity is false! Logically impossible for that to be the case. So, where is the water supply? We're already rationed and adding demand will strain our meager supplies.

Lastly, the residences being proposed will be luxury housing; this is not what is needed! Having only 10% affordable housing is laughable and certainly won't relieve the need for affordable housing. To make even a slight dent in relieving the scarcity of affordable housing, the minimum demand should be for 30% affordable housing.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and supporting the presented points of view.

Marcia Fariss
Saratoga

[External Email]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Item 10.2: Reject the Rezoning and PD Permit for EL Paseo Mixed Use Project PDC19-049 & PD20-006
Yuxiang Chen <
Tue 6/14/2022 11:05 AM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear Mayor Liccardo & City Council,
I live at , San Jose, right on the back of the proposed new El Paseo 10-12 story buildings.

We're deeply concerned about this project, and believe the current proposal will have a huge impact on the nearby residents, especially us closeby.

We believe:

1. The proposal 9-12 stories building is too high and will sacrifice the privacy to the neighbors, especially the properties on the west side of Elmwood drive.

2. Insufficient parking space for 2000+ residents, many cars will end up parking in our neighborhood on Elmwood Drive.

3. The dense apartment will create a huge amount of traffic.

4. The high density population will significantly drain our already limited public resources (school, recreational) and we strongly believe the current proposal didn't address the issue enough.

I request to reject this proposal.

Thanks,
Yuxiang Chen

[External Email]
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: El Paseo project concerns
City Clerk <
Tue 6/14/2022 3:28 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Judy Stevens <
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 1:09 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ District1
< District4 < District5 < District 6
< District7 < District8 < District9
< District 10 < City Clerk < District2
< District3 <
Subject: El Paseo project concerns

To: San Jose city oﬃcials:

From: Rich and Judy Stevens, residents in the Westgate area of San Jose

Subject: building proposal for El Paseo center

We are extremely concerned about the current plans for El Paseo Center. This will totally overpower this neighborhood with incredibly tall buildings. This s a neighborhood with modest housing and a few buildings maybe 3 stories. The 6 towers proposed are from 9 to 12 stories tall. Would you like to live near this? We are not a downtown area surrounded by tall buildings. We are mostly one and two story houses.

We understand the need for more housing but the density of this project goes way beyond what this area can accommodate. We are not near public transit except for a few buses. Apparently the selling point for your plan is for some aﬀordable units which is ﬁne, but not enough to jusfy what is being planned. You can provide the same number of lower rent apartments without having so many high density buildings.

Your proposed project includes:
4 buildings / 6 towers rising to 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, & 12 stories: Extraordinary density and heights for transit poor area
994 apartments: 92 dwelling units/acre. (High density Signature Projects require 55 dwelling units/acre.) No homeownership opportunies.
2,000+ new residents, but only 190 new jobs: Perpetuates SJ's jobs to housing imbalance

1.1-acre park area for 2,000+ residents: Far less than the 6+ acres required for 2,000+ residents Minimum number of aﬀordable units (15%): No "Very Low Income" units. Aﬀordable units relegated to single tower, furthest from park and amenies
1,243 residenal parking spaces for 2,000+ residents.

Are you just pushing this through because our neighborhood hasn’t been forceful enough to have you take a second look? We do understand the need for more housing, especially more aﬀordable housing, and we agree that is needed, but this is crazy. What can we do to have you stop and take a look at this and provide something more reasonable. Mulple neighborhood associates have researched this issue and are against this plan. Please stop and reconsider.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Thank you,

Rich and Judy Stevens
San Jose, 95130

June 14, 2022
Re: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 “EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)”

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,

I urge you DENY Sand Hill’s El Paseo de Saratoga proposal being heard on June 21st. A 12-story development with 92 du/acres is far too dense for an area and fails to comply with the spirit of the General Plan or of signature projects.

The neighbors are anxious to work with the City and Sandhill in developing a project that will benefit the City and the neighborhood. The neighbors have submitted a petition with over 500 hundred signatures requesting a development with a maximum building height of 8 stories. We are not NIMBYs. We would like to see a 6 to 8 story development with 55 du/acre.

This project is far denser than similar signature projects. The Stevens Creek Prominade has a density of 63 DU/ acre and 8 story buildings. The Cambrian Plaza project has a density of 39 DU/ acres and a 7- story building. Why is this project being held to a different standard than the City's other signature projects?

El Paseo de Saratoga is 30 acres in size. The current proposal consumes 9 acres of the site. The 9 acres is being planned without any consideration for the larger site. Developing the site in chunks prevents effectively prevents the City from effective planning. The 9 acres being planned does not adequately take into consideration the area’s multimodal transportation, parkland, or employment needs.

The project is being sold as a signature project. Signature projects are expected to set the stage for the development of the entire urban village. Yet, the project does not consider the needs of the urban village. The Urban Village encompasses 172 acres. This project is 11 acres. 7% of the urban village. Yet it consumes the entire allocation of housing identified within the general plan for this urban village.

The General Plan specifies that urban villages are to assist in remedying the City's job-housing imbalance. This project does exactly the opposite and does so in a damaging manner. It proposes over 900 units and very few jobs in a residential area with limited transit. This project exasperates a bad traffic situation rather than promote a reverse commute and does nothing to assist in increasing the City’s tax base.

A signature project is supposed to be an exemplary example of planning. This project does the bare minimum of what is required. The low-income housing being provided is the minimum required and the project provides virtually no parkland.

The project provides the minimum number of affordable (BMR) units required and in a manner that does not aligns with the City's RHNA allocations. The vast majority (85%) of the units are available for the above-moderate income category. Only 10% of the units are available in the low-income category.

No units are available in the very low-income category.

The BMR units are being clustered in an 'Affordability Residential Tower' separated from main project by Saratoga Avenue. Providing the bare minimum number of BMR units, at the highest income category, and clustering them in a separate building across the street from the main project does not align with the spirit of a signature project.

The property should be developed at a higher density than currently exists but not the density being proposed by Sand Hill Properties. The development is proposing an extremely high-density development in an area with limited transit options. The interchange serving the project at Saratoga and 280 is one of the most congested interchanges in the City. With a Costco likely to be built directly across the street, the vast majority of the urban village unplanned, and no real transit options this development will likely have a significant negative impact on the local circulation patterns. Prior to developing the project, a comprehensive traffic study should be conducted.

City should be providing 3.5 acres per 1000 residents based on the policies within the General Plan. The Parks Department estimates the project will generate demand for 6.9 acres of parkland. This project is proposing a single 1.1-acre public park. A park not likely to be accepted by the Parks department because of its design and location. This project is likely to include NO public parkland and a 1.1 acre publicly accessible open space.

The project is adjacent to the Baker West neighborhood. The Baker West neighborhood is a park desert.

There is not a single park in the neighborhood. The closest City park is not within a safe walking distance. It is a 1/2 mile away on the other side of Prospect Avenue, Saratoga Avenue, and the Westgate West parking lot. This project, from a parks perspective, does not conform to the policies of the general plan or ActivateSJ.

The development of the entire 30 acre El Paseo de Saratoga parcel provides a wonderful opportunity to plan for adequate parkland for its residents. Unfortunately, this project only provides one-sixth of the parkland required to mitigate its impact. Please require the planning of the entire 30 acres so that adequate parkland can be designed into the project.

The project does not comply with the spirit or the policies of the General Plan, signature projects, or ActivateSJ. For a project to be approved, within an urban village prior to the approval of the urban village plan, it must be a signature project. This project is not extraordinary in any way except in its ability to squeeze as much as possible on as little acreage as possible. It provides the bare minimum of what is required from a housing and parks perspective. It does not assist with the jobs-housing imbalance. It does not serve as a model for the rest of the urban village. Please deny the project! Require that the entire 30 acre El Paseo site be planned with the urban village in mind, that a comprehensive transportation study be conducted, and that significantly more parkland be provided.

Best regards,
Bob Levy
(Former San Jose Planning Commissioner and Parks Commissioner) [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project City Clerk <
Tue 6/14/2022 5:40 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Laka Munjal <
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:13 PM
To: City Clerk < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
< District1 < District2
< District3 < District4 < District5
< District 6 < District7 < District8
< District9 < District 10 <
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project

Respected Mayor Liccardo & San Jose Councilmembers:

I am a resident of Saratoga and I respectfully urge you to reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applications to redevelop a portion of the 30-acre El Paseo de Saratoga shopping center located in District 1 at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Quito/Lawrence.

I have lived in Saratoga woods for the last 27 years. I have seen traffic increasing over the years to the point that getting on the freeway on Saratoga Avenue takes me about 10-12 minutes during commute time even though I live only a mile away from the freeway. What you are proposing by putting the majority of this housing near Saratoga avenue and Lawrence/Quito will not only increase the traffic on the roads here, but our schools and quality of life will go down. Not to say how ugly those tall buildings will look and take away the feel of this neighborhood. Please reconsider and reject this rezoning of El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Avenue mixed use Project.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Latika Munjal

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Suman Patel

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Eulalio Mendez Garibay

[External Email]
FW: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed Use Project City Clerk <
Thu 6/16/2022 10:37 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Cindy Myers <
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:27 AM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo < District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District7 <
District8 < District9 <
Cc: City Clerk <
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed Use Project

Dear Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Jones, and City Council Members, Sergio Jimenez, Raul Peralez, David Cohen, Magdalena Carrasco,
Dev Davis, Maya Esparza, Sylvia Arenas, Pam Foley, and Ma Mahan:

My husband and I are residents of a neighborhood that will be directly aﬀected by the El Paseo and Saratoga Ave. project you are considering. We live about 2 blocks behind El Paseo and will see it from our front windows and drive past it every day. The residents of the apartments will look down into our yard. We own another home in our neighborhood which is one house away from the berm which separates our street from the apartments. These tall buildings will aﬀect the value of this home.

We urge you to carefully consider this project and it’s aﬀect on the surrounding neighborhoods for years to come. The building heights are enrely out of character for this neighborhood. There are not buildings 12 stories high even on El Camino Real or Stevens Creek Blvd. The density is way beyond the density required for High Density Signature Projects.

These require 55 dwellings per acre. This project is 92 dwellings per acre. This density will aﬀect the traﬃc and it is already very busy. Then add in the other projects (including Costco) planned for nearby areas and it will be a nightmare.

Please, please do not allow buildings 9, 10, 11, and 12 stories high. This project as planned would ﬁt into Downtown San Jose, but does not conform to our Westgate neighborhoods.

We understand that high density housing will be built and welcome the low income housing, but these extremely high buildings and high density will adversely aﬀect the traﬃc, parking, general congeson of people, and the look of our Urban Village. We will look up to see 12 and 11 story buildings rather than open sky and distant mountains. The amount of open park space planned, at 1.1 acres for 2,000 residents is far less than required 6+ acres. The open park should be large enough to share with my family. With only 1,243 residenal parking spaces for 2,000+ residents,

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. where will the rest park? Will they park on my street? Why will this project only bring 190 new jobs?

Please Mayor Sam Liccardo, Vice Mayor Chappie Jones, and City Council Members, Please Reject Rezoning and PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777Saratoga Ave. Mixed Use Project.

Please require the developer to submit a beer plan for surrounding neighborhoods, new residents, and the City of San Jose with:

1. Lower building heights

2. Less residenal density

3. More new jobs

4. Closer alignment with the City’s aﬀordable housing goals

5. Adequate and equitable access to parks space and amenies

This project will inﬂuence how the rest of our 174 Acre Urban Village including Westgate Center and Westgate West is developed. Please use your best judgement and careful consideraon of what is best for all of us. Would this project ﬁt into your neighborhood? We are depending on you to make a fair and thoughul decision.

Sincerely,

Jack Myers
Cindy Myers

San Jose City CouncilJune 14, 2022

San Jose City Council
June 14, 2022